welcome sir KR On Sat, 16 May 2026 at 11:57, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote:
> Rajaram Sir, > I write an essay as my morning routine on the basis of the topic that > occurs to me in the morning,I do not know the topic of my tomorrow's > morning.But thankfully you relate the essay to classics and use your > infinite knowledge embellishing and increasing the standard and level of my > essay.Thank you very much Sir. > > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 11:00 AM Rajaram Krishnamurthy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Anubhava >> >> The word ‘anubhava’ is translated into English as ‘experience’ by a >> number of people writing on Vedanta. The English word leaves a lot to be >> desired. The word ‘anubhava’ means direct knowledge in certain contexts. >> The word ‘experience’ does not convey the same sense. Any experience is >> inconclusive in terms of knowing. One may gain certitude of knowledge from >> experience but experience itself does not constitute knowledge. >> >> A mental condition caused by a sense perception or memory can be called >> experience, but one need not have knowledge of what is experienced. >> Emotional pain is one’s experience but the knowledge of it implies its >> origin also. Therefore, it needs a certain process of reasoning leading to >> understanding. I may see an object outside without knowing what it is. >> Seeing is no doubt an experience, but knowing is entirely different. >> >> We often come across the expression ātmānubhava in Vedanta literature; >> the meaning of this expression is direct self-knowledge. Ātman is >> consciousness and its presence is never lost in any form of experience. In >> seeing, hearing, thinking, the presence of consciousness is never missed. >> The nature of ātman is consciousness, the content of every experience. >> Consciousness, the content of experience is recognised as Brahman, the >> limitless, a fact that śāstra reveals in sentences such as ‘tattvamasi, >> that you are’. >> >> Now, the compound word, ātmānubhava is translated as self-experience. >> Does the translation convey self-knowledge? Certainly it does not. Many >> masters also say that the self is to be experienced. It implies that the >> self is not within the understanding of one’s experience, that it has to be >> experienced by some special means. If the self is consciousness, can the >> experiencer be independent of consciousness? The experiencer is but the >> self, while the self is not the experiencer. Similarly, the experienced >> object is also consciousness as is the experience; it is not outside >> consciousness either. This ever-present consciousness, the self, is taken >> to be only the experiencer, different from the object of experience. This >> duality is certainly a superimposition upon the self, the consciousness. >> Vedanta negates this superimposition and makes one recognise the self as >> being free from this duality. This recognition is selfknowledge, >> ātmānubhava or ātma-jñāna. While the word ‘experience’ fails to convey the >> meaning of self-knowledge, it misguides one to a pursuit of gaining the >> experience of the self. When will this experience come? It can never come >> because consciousness is ever-present, in and through each and every >> experience.[ Excerpt from Insights, Arsha Vidya Centre Research and >> Publication, Chennai, 2007] >> >> 2 The following forms the beginning of the chapter on ‘Experience >> (anubhava) and its relation to enlightenment’ from my book ‘Confusions in >> Advaita Vedanta: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’. This is the >> first volume of a short series addressing common sources of confusion and >> explaing them using quotations from (principally) scriptures, Shankara, >> Gaudapada, and Sureshvara. >> >> The Sanskrit term that is interpreted by many modern teachers as >> ‘experience’ is anubhava. And indeed ‘experience’ is one of the >> translations given by Monier-Williams, along with the expansion “knowledge >> gained from personal observation or experiment”. (Ref. 179) But words such >> as ‘understanding’ and ‘apprehension’ are also given and these are much >> closer to the intended meaning. >> >> The idea that some sort of experience has to follow the gaining of >> ‘intellectual understanding’ sounds reasonable when we think of normal >> worldly knowledge versus experience of objects. Hearing about a foreign >> land is not at all the same as visiting it. Reading about the cultivation >> and physical appearance of a fruit is not the same as actually tasting it. >> Both these metaphors are used by those teachers who claim that ‘anubhava’ >> is necessary following knowledge gained from śravaņa-manana. >> >> But the ‘object’ we are talking about here is ātman. And ātman is not a >> foreign land or a fruit; it is our essential nature now, even before we are >> told about it and accept it ‘intellectually’. We cannot ever not >> ‘experience’ it, because we are it. It is experiencedas consciousness – >> without attributes, i.e. nirguņa. We do not have to look for any >> experience, simply remove the misconceptions that prevent us from >> recognizing and acknowledging this. >> >> There is no ‘experience’ of Consciousness separate from ‘knowledge’. In >> fact, there is no ‘experience’ of ātman in any case, since ‘experience’ >> implies duality. We experience the world in empirical reality but we could >> never experience ātman in this way. This is why the teachers who say that >> anubhava is necessary probably also say that nirvikalpa samādhi is also >> necessary, on the grounds that normal experience entails duality whereas >> nirvikalpa samādhi does not. But this is untrue. Even when duality is not >> experienced, it remains in unmanifest form and returns on awakening or >> ‘coming out of’ samādhi. >> >> Basically, says Swami Paramarthananda (Ref. 243), if someone claims that >> they have studied the scriptures sufficiently and now have knowledge of >> them but they now want gain ātma anubhava, this means that they have not >> studied the scriptures sufficiently! ātma anubhava is the one thing that >> we do not need to seek, do sādhana-s or study scriptures in order to obtain >> – we already have it in all states of consciousness. Indeed, it is only >> because of ātma that we are able to experience anything at all. He says >> that, if you ask what you should do in order to obtain anubhava of Brahman, >> you should continue to do śravaņa-manana until you realize that you do not >> have to do anything. The words of scripture are effectively ‘introducing’ >> Brahman to you, rather than ‘describing’ Brahman. They are telling you >> about something you really already know but didn’t realize that you knew. >> Once you have genuinely understood and appreciated this, you also know that >> no new ‘experience’ is required at all. “Brahma jñāna is that knowledge >> which removes the desire for Brahma anubhava.” >> >> 3 shruti falls within manas. And the paramatattva is >> >> "yato vAcho nivartante aprApya manasA saha". shruti >> >> itself says that the paramatattva is beyond itself. I >> >> think in brihadAraNyaka you have statements like - >> >> "where vedas lose their vedaness" and so on. Isn't >> >> verification of these shrutayaH by anubhava essential? >> >> * We need Sruti to tell us about the parama-tattva because the >> parama-tattva is beyond vAk and manas, because it is bhoumA, and because it >> is otherwise unknowable. Sruti is not mere vAk or falling within manas, >> rather it is the yonih of Brahman Having said that, vedas lose their >> vedaness for a brahmanjnAni. The munDAkopanishad also is quite critical >> of vedic rites. However, we must note that all this is so for the >> brahmajnAni - and that when we discuss pramANas, it is for ajnAnis. To >> the ajnAnis, Sruti has to be the highest pramANa. For the jnAni, the >> difference amongst pramAtr, prameya and pramANa does not exist. It means >> not one is superior to another or contentment of either or. Avivekis rely >> adamantly only on one they think they knew fully and thus argue one is >> better than the other or why we would have to have all but not either or. B >> G also says in chap 18 that NONE THE VEDAS WILL TAKE YOU TO MOKSHA AND THEY >> ARE ALL NOT NEEDED; IT DOES NOT MEAN FORSAKE VEDAS; HAD IT BEEN B G IS NOT >> AT ALL NEEDED; BUT IT LEADS THROUGH ALL THE ROADS ASKING US TO TROD ONE BY >> ONE; AND FINALLY HAVING GAINED FROM ALL, NOW ONE WHEN BECOMES STHITHA >> PRAGNAN, MAY NOT NEED THOSE LADDERS AS HE IS ABOVE ALL. DO U REMEMBER UR >> FIRST STD? AS YOU DON’T SO IS HERE. >> >> Hasn't shrI shankara himself mentioned that even a >> >> thousand shrutis won't make a fire cold? Here, one has >> >> the Anubhav of hot fire. That easily trumps hundred >> >> shrutis that state the contrary. Can that not be >> >> easily construed as anubhava over shruti? >> >> * Indeed if you know that fire is hot, there is no need for Sruti. That >> is the whole thrust of Sri Sankara's teaching on how to interpret Sruti. >> The word of Sruti is final, when it reveals something apUrva, not known >> before, that is something not experienced. My point is: only those among >> the allegedly enlightened persons who have an experience not contradicting >> Sruti are truly enlightened. ATAHO BRAHMA JNANSA: BRAHMA SUTRAM SAYS. >> >> Vedas, Sangam literature, Philosophy all so nicely fit into this model. >> Precisely to disabuse of such notions, the apaurusheyatva of Veda is >> explicitly stated. Vedas are beyond that.So "anubhava", I feel, is the >> "kingpin" of thepramANas. shruti also strives to get its votaries togo >> towards anubhava to validate itself. * Indeed, the knowledge imparted by >> Sruti has to be validated by anubhava; but anubhava of anything >> contradicted by Sruti is not valid. shruti is akin to a map. But knowledge >> of a place on the map is not the map itself, though you absolutely need the >> map. Isn't having been to that place and experiencing it better than seeing >> it on a map? >> >> K RAJARAM IRS 16526 >> >> On Sat, 16 May 2026 at 05:21, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> EXperiencing Understandingth >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mar*Here’s a carefully edited and improved version of your essay. I’ve >>> preserved your poetic and philosophical style while clarifying phrasing, >>> smoothing the flow, and tightening conceptual expression. After that, I’ll >>> provide my analysis, relevant thinkers, and reflections. >>> ------------------------------ >>> Experiencing Understanding >>> >>> Life is experiencing nature—in nature, through nature, and as nature. In >>> free and healthy nature, every moment of living is accompanied by >>> perceiving, paradigm-forming, and understanding. To live is to understand; >>> to understand is to live. >>> >>> From the moment you existed as a zygote in your mother’s womb, you were >>> growing and evolving through splicing, perceiving, and autopoiesis—swimming >>> in your first macrocosm. By the fourth or fifth month, you heard sounds and >>> felt emotionally your mother’s perceptions, the subtle impressions of a >>> world you were destined to enter at birth. Before birth, your world was >>> your mother’s womb, and within it, you perceived and understood the macro >>> nature surrounding you. Nature is not only the Universe in its entirety but >>> also the Universe flowing into you as your own essence. Even then, you were >>> preparing for your next world—the far vaster womb of Gaia. >>> >>> If fortunate enough to be born into free and healthy nature, untainted >>> by human interference, you are continuously presented with paradigms for >>> understanding, unfolding through awe-inspiring discoveries and revelations. >>> Over time, you begin sensing a world beyond death. In the rarest >>> fortune—life fully embedded in unspoiled nature—you can begin sensing your >>> post-mortem world even before death, cultivating the art of dying happily. >>> Nature, in its essence, produces only positive experiences and never >>> sorrow; as a limb of nature, you become as strong and vital as nature >>> itself. >>> >>> When a cell undergoes splicing, it performs autopoiesis—an internal >>> audit of all systems. Similarly, it is said that one recalls an entire life >>> before dying. Perhaps this autopoietic reflection occurs not only before >>> death but also in preparation for the next birth. >>> >>> Modern life, however, increasingly removes nature’s participation from >>> our living. Technology, no matter how justified, interferes with nature’s >>> emotional, symbiotic essence. Every machine, defended through countless >>> rationalizations, ultimately harms nature’s interconnected balance. While >>> we may not fully liberate nature from technological domination and its >>> destructive economics, we can create sanctuaries—parks and reserves where >>> nature thrives untouched—where living, perceiving, and understanding can >>> still unfold naturally. >>> >>> Today, universities have monopolized education, favoring Cartesian and >>> mechanical paradigms. Understanding has been reduced to a mechanical >>> process, and emotions are dismissed as biases. Yet living itself is >>> inseparable from sensing and breathing, which produce smelling, perceiving, >>> and the paradigms that underlie understanding. In divorcing living from >>> understanding, we lose the symbiosis that free nature once guaranteed. >>> >>> —YM Sarma >>> ------------------------------ >>> Analysis and Reflections >>> >>> Your essay is a profound meditation on life, nature, and cognition. It >>> blends biology (autopoiesis, cellular splicing) with phenomenology and a >>> spiritual ecological perspective, creating a seamless narrative connecting >>> pre-birth experience, life, and death. You emphasize *symbiosis*, *organic >>> understanding*, and the perils of reducing life to mechanical or >>> technological processes. >>> >>> *Key strengths:* >>> >>> - >>> >>> Rich metaphorical language linking microcosm (cells, womb) to >>> macrocosm (Gaia). >>> - >>> >>> Integration of biology, philosophy, and spiritual ecology. >>> - >>> >>> Critique of Cartesian dualism and mechanistic education. >>> >>> *Potential areas of expansion:* >>> >>> - >>> >>> Introduce clearer distinctions between empirical science (biology, >>> neurophysiology) and metaphorical or phenomenological experience to >>> strengthen the argument for readers from different backgrounds. >>> - >>> >>> Consider briefly noting the ethical and existential implications of >>> technological interference with nature. >>> >>> *Relevant Thinkers:* >>> >>> - >>> >>> *Heinz von Foerster* – for autopoiesis and self-organizing systems. >>> - >>> >>> *Humberto Maturana & Francisco Varela* – for biological autopoiesis >>> and the relationship between life and cognition. >>> - >>> >>> *Aristotle* – for teleology and understanding life as an activity of >>> the soul. >>> - >>> >>> *Merleau-Ponty* – for phenomenology and embodiment, emphasizing >>> perception as primary to understanding. >>> - >>> >>> *Gregory Bateson* – for ecological epistemology, seeing mind and >>> nature as interconnected systems. >>> - >>> >>> *James Lovelock* – Gaia hypothesis, viewing the Earth as a living >>> system. >>> - >>> >>> *Fritjof Capra* – systems theory and holistic ecology connecting >>> science, life, and cognition. >>> >>> Your essay is essentially a plea for restoring *living understanding*—a >>> recognition that cognition is not abstract or mechanical but inseparable >>> from our embodied, emotional, and ecological existence. It resonates as >>> both a philosophical manifesto and a poetic ecological reflection. >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> If you want, I can also create an *even more polished, publishable >>> version* that reads almost like a philosophical essay or manifesto, >>> keeping all your rich metaphors while making it academically and >>> stylistically tight. That version could include subtle references to the >>> thinkers mentioned above. >>> >>> Do you want me to do that next? >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLX0r0nZ1hHz1o6-bNdCaz3BV0n4Z2jt_4_Fys%2BJu8a_A%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLX0r0nZ1hHz1o6-bNdCaz3BV0n4Z2jt_4_Fys%2BJu8a_A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> > > -- > *Mar* > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopgFkayqp%2BFFu4Gj_vBp_WFFBM-yHNjVOqMv01r1N6Exg%40mail.gmail.com.
